Reviews

I can't deny the highly authentic and strong performances in this film, particularly that of Michael Caine. But I have to vouch against some of the reviews written for this film.

Its typical how some have praised this film with anger and vitriol, venting furious rage at the 'declining state of our society' and the 'ever growing youth crime' in this country. Well maybe that's what the film wanted, to want people to feel angry. The papers of course are spilling stories of rampant violent youth crime day after day. Even to the point where the Sun labelled England "worse than New York in the 80's". Only in the Sun eh? Wrong, you can thank the Daily Mail, The Mirror, News of the World and any other cheap tabloid to make us all believe in the sensationalistic viewpoint that with live in a country overrun with murderous chavs. Well I don't. And I bet other reviewers are just repeating what they see when they turn on Sky news each morning.

There is crime always present, I am not naive. Violent crime has been around in Britain for decades stretching way back, gangs have always been around, apathetic youth have always been around, it just comes with a different face and attitude with each decade that passes that's all. The way I see it, violent youths aren't getting worse, the papers are being more dramatic with it. Treating its viewers and readers like saps and unable to report the stories without trying to tapping into either our greatest fears or our moral outrage, or worse, inflaming it. With so many people watching Harry Brown and other vigilante films alike, I'm finding it hard to see a positive review without someone going off about how they believe that this film truly represents the Britain of today as a whole or how they got off watching the evil hoodies get their comeuppance or ranting how the police are utterly useless. There are so much complications regarding the incessant bureaucracy within the police force and the courts, and so many complications regarding disillusioned youths, their families and upbringings and surroundings to turn them into the feral thugs they are.... but hey, why bother trying to think why its like this when we can watch a film that simply encourages and directs our hate on them by watching a lonely, desperate old pensioner pump bullets in these kids? You might think I'm going off into a futile rant while thinking "its just a film, made for entertainment and nothing else". Well, it didn't entertain me as so much as leave a sour taste on my mouth by the time I left the cinema by showing some of the nastiest character ever seen on screen. Screenwriter Gary Young has really pulled off making these lowlife scum about as contemptible as you can get. Each scene is colour drained and murky enough to give that real sense of bleak hopelessness to flood over the audience. It doesn't so much give a sense of gritty realism as so much as realism perceived by Prozac addicts. And as for the whole "just a film" aspect, Harry Brown tries to be social commentary and is none too subtle about it either, making several negative characterisations at the police with their ambivalent behaviour and blatant incompetence towards each situation portrayed in the film - Emily Mortimer gives a truly flat, wet performance and Charles Creed Miles gives his copper such a common, vacant-minded role that even cynics of the law would be hardly convinced they're playing accurate police officers.

The plot structure of Harry Brown isn't original either. It really is a case of been-there-done-that that was seen in Death Wish and The Brave One. You know, it starts with the innocent, quiet civilian who's friend/loved one is savagely murdered, mourns their loss, purchases a weapon for self defence, has their first kill an accidental act of said self-defence, feels sickened/shocked by what they've done but discover they have an act for that sort of violence and continue to hunt and murder thugs each night. You'd think that 35 years after Death Wish came out these filmmakers might have wanted to think of something a little more original? Although Harry Brown is different in that light which Harry's mission is to personally hunt down the thugs who killed his friend for revenge, the conclusion is inevitable, if not also unbelievable. By throwing in a seemingly random, plot twist involving the relationship of the head thug Noel (Ben Drew) but also climaxing the film in an enormous riot where the police face off against what seems over a hundred psychotic hoodies (in ONE small council estate) the film by then is now just going way over the top in trying to convince us that we are in a living hell. It also ends with a voice-over narrative of how the actions that happened in this film led to a decrease in violent crime overall in the town as the camera follows Harry Brown down in the underpass. Now it may not glorify violence in general due to the ugly way its portrayed here, but it does however, not only glorify vigilantism and violent retribution but also tries to justify it too. It is just completely morally bankrupt.

But hey, at least its not as head-smackingly awful as the 2007 film Outlaw, which is at least some small relief.

One day hopefully we'll see a vigilante/revenge based film that accurately portrays the REAL society we live in without the extreme perceptions created by sensationalist media (or better yet, make an example of them and their clear influence on people across the nation) and actually nail down the roots of why some of the youths of today are vicious and heartless in the first place. Rather than resorting to our inner fascist fantasies of just wanting to see them die.

Early previews has called this a return to form. Hardly. This was for me, a major disappointment.

The moment the film begins, its as if it intentionally tries to confuse us as to what the hell this film's all about. Describing the plot is close to pointless. After all, Guy Ritchie isn't adept in the old art of storytelling, his films ran along the lines of sitcoms - a series of events instead of an actual story. Which wasn't a bad thing in the case of Lock, Stock & Snatch because emotional resonance with the audience was irrelevant. The goal there was to generate laughter. But RocknRolla is only funny in minor - and I DO mean minor - spots. What's more, it also doesn't help as it begins: of how it mentions that Britain is on the up in the property market. Seeing as of now the country is currently enduring credit-crunch problems, inflation rises and a major decrease in property value. You'd be surprised how automatically dated this makes the film.

Its unfair to judge a new film based on the director's previous efforts, but when its Guy Ritchie - who's been running on the same formula for the past 10 years - you can't help but do so. This film was advertised and touted as a return to form ala Lock, Stock and Snatch, but after the first time I watched those two, I loved them. Not looked at them with total scorn. The moments of humour and wit is few and far between, and some lines of dialogue and monologues try to add a little swagger but come off as pretentious and are inches away from falling into self-parody and returning to Revolver territory. And when the best laughs this film can generate involves around a character's homosexuality, you know this film is headed for the pits.

The performances here are strong, but it still doesn't account for the dialogue which just goes nowhere. The entire persona of Tom Wilkinson's cockney villain is almost entirely derived from Bob Hoskins in the Long Good Friday and Tony Kebbell's "Johnny Quid" (the RocknRolla of the film's title) is pretty much a totally pointless character - honestly, did this guy have any purpose in this film other than that he stole the painting? > No. In the end it doesn't help when the film's excuse for a plot is merely a bunch of distractions to hide what is really - a completely mediocre film. Its so convoluted anyway, its virtually nonsense.

Unlike Lock, Stock and Snatch, where all the characters and their situations are established, in this film they're not and it finishes with too many loose ends and plot holes, and contrivances. - What actually happened to Thandie Newton and the Russian with that painting? - Where did the whole Lenny's frame up of the characters come from then? - Will all this be revealed in Ricthie's intended sequel? Who knows? And who cares? Because if that were the case, the best described feeling that this would generate would be that you were cheated.

Guy Ritchie's flashy hyper-kinetic style is what keeps this film from being a total bore, but now's the time where he should stop writing scripts.